The disgust is only the beginning

[elfs]

Once upon a time, I read National Review. Writers like John Derbyshire and Victor Davis Hanson were, a few years ago, interesting, fresh with new ideas, and startlingly intellectual. Hanson has since devolved into a cheerleader for the President because he can't imagine an alternative, and Derbyshire recently shot himself in the foot by referring to the victims of Virginia Tech as "cowards" for refusing to take on an armed assailant all by themselves.

And then I am reminded that the senior editor at National Review once said that the goverment should mandate that every positive HIV diagnosis in this country should come with a tattoo warning for potential sex partners, preferably on the buttocks. I wondered what should be written there. "Abandon every hope, ye who enter?"

But an entry today by Thomas Sowell reveals the vicious mindlessness to which they have descended:

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.

That's all you need to read. Really. Go ahead and "enjoy" the rest of the article, but really, that encompasses the whole of his thought.

Comments

[solarbird]

It's also pretty well in line with the Wall Street Journal's opinion page op-ed column today calling explicitly for a "strong president" specifically not bound by rules of law, calling explicitly for a Prince. Honestly, it's an outright condemnation of the rule of law. Here's a quote:

Now the rule of law has two defects, each of which suggests the need for one-man rule. The first is that law is always imperfect by being universal, thus an average solution even in the best case, that is inferior to the living intelligence of a wise man on the spot, who can judge particular circumstances...

The other defect is that the law does not know how to make itself obeyed. Law assumes obedience, and as such seems oblivious to resistance to the law by the "governed," as if it were enough to require criminals to turn themselves in. No, the law must be "enforced," as we say. There must be police, and the rulers over the police must use energy (Alexander Hamilton's term) in addition to reason. It is a delusion to believe that governments can have energy without ever resorting to the use of force.

The best source of energy turns out to be the same as the best source of reason--one man. One man, or, to use Machiavelli's expression, uno solo, will be the greatest source of energy if he regards it as necessary to maintaining his own rule. Such a person will have the greatest incentive to be watchful, and to be both cruel and merciful in correct contrast and proportion. We are talking about Machiavelli's prince, the man whom in apparently unguarded moments he called a tyrant.

Ripped straight from the pages of absolutist monarchial and fascist history. This is where the Bush movement has gone. It's really quite horrifying.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Ripped straight from the pages of absolutist monarchial and fascist history. This is where the Bush movement has gone. It's really quite horrifying.

One point:

The Wall Street Journal and the Bush Administration are hardly the same thing. They're at their closest, allies.

Now, if I really thought that the Administration was considering a coup from above, I would be horrified.

[solarbird]

I didn't say Bush administration, though they have been making the same arguments in slightly different language - specifically that the executive branch cannot be constrained by Congress or its tools, which is to say, law - but the Bush movement, which is the power currently led by Mr. Bush, but soon to be led by someone else now that Mr. Bush has exhausted his usefulness.

And I further don't think that calls for dictatorship have to come from the chief executive to be horrifying. The Wall Street Journal's editorial board (which is actually separate from the rest of the paper, which is fine; the news sections are quite good) which publishes the OpinionJournal pages form one of the major voices of the neoconservative movement, and, to a lessor degree, the conservative movement. This movement has dominated American politics for the six years previous to the last round of elections. That major voice is now calling for dictatorship. That's bad.

I overstate very slightly.

[solarbird]

Since you can't edit comments:

The editorial board itself is not calling for dictatorship. They're publishing one of their allies in the movement calling for dictatorship. It's not the same thing, because the authors are different, but I'm pretty sure that if they had wild disagreements over the direction of the editorial, they likely would not have run it.

Wow

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

That's an amazing article on so many levels. Amazing that it was written at all, doubly amazing that it was written by a Harvard professor, triply amazing that it was published anywhere, quadruply amazing that it was published in the Wall Street Journal.

Most people figure out why the old "benevolent dictator" idea isn't so great within a few months of hearing it for the first time-- usually, during the sophomore year of college.

Maybe this guy never actually finished his sophomore year, and that's why he's still at Harvard.

. png